So Far Only One Alleged Victim

An anonymous commenter made the following statement, which can be found here:

AnonymousMay 31, 2016 at 1:15 PM

Diana. This came from JW:

NOTE FROM CNMI LAWYER

CNMI LawyerMay 31, 2016 at 9:33 AM

The decedent’s statement is admissible hearsay.

When molestation survivor Joseph A. Quinata made his statement to his mother Doris Concepcion about what happened to him at age 11, he expressly did so because he was about to undergo surgery for a perforated intestine, with only a 30% likelihood of survival, and did in fact pass away shortly thereafter.

Under the law, statements made under the belief of imminent death about the cause of death, such as “He shot me,” are an exception to the normal rule excluding hearsay testimony from court proceedings. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2).

Statements in the face of imminent death about other matters are also admissible under the Residual Exception, where “the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1).

This is significant because it greatly increases the likelihood of admissibility of Joseph A. Quinata’s statement in any civil or criminal case where it may be relevant.

The hearsay statements of other survivors who are now unavailable (whether through death or an unwillingness to relive the psychological trauma) may very well also be admissible under the Residual Exception, based upon independent indicia of reliability.

But because Joseph A. Quinata’s statement was made under the belief of imminent death, it is quite literally a nail in the coffin of the clerical careers of Guam NCW Cult leaders Archbishop Apuron, Father Sammut, Father Cristobal, et al.

St. Thomas Aquinas posited at least four possible reasons for human suffering, as when a loved one passes away. (1) Free will. (2) Imperfect knowledge. (3) Good from evil. (4) Redemptive suffering -- in union with Christ.

The grief and sorrow experienced by his family upon the death of Joseph A. Quinata may indeed lead directly and proximately to a great spiritual good (# 3), the dissolution of the Guam NCW Cult Leadership.

They should step aside temporarily before they are removed permanently. Let us pray that their counsel gives sound legal advice.

May the faithful of the Archdiocese be strengthened to stand up and speak out for what is right, and to support those in our midst who have suffered and continue to suffer from this criminal conspiracy.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!

This is my response:

First of all, the Federal Residual Exception is rarely used.  According to Birdsong's Law Blog:

 It was intended that the residual exceptions would be used sparingly by the courts and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.⁹  The Advisory Committee cautioned that the residual exceptions “do not contemplate an unfettered exercise of judicial discretion, but they do provide for treating new and presently unanticipated situations which demonstrate trustworthiness within the spirit of the specifically stated exceptions”¹⁰

Secondly, in my country, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  And the accusations are called "allegations."  The judicial system of Guam and the United States was established to protect a person's rights especially the rights of the accused so he/she can get a fair trial.  This does not mean that the person accusing is telling a lie. 

Recently, I posted a story about Cardinal Bernardin and Cardinal Pell.  Bernardin was also accused of sexual molestation in the 1970s by Stephen Cook.  However, this does not mean that he was lying. Cook later dropped the charges.  Cook later said that he had relied on people who told him things that were not true, "asserting that he is absolutely convinced of Bernardin's innocent.

Although the statutes of limitation prevents Mr. Quintanilla from bringing the Archbishop to court, it does not prevent the Archbishop from bringing Quintanilla to court.  For the past three years, we already know that the jungle has been desperately trying to remove Archbishop Apuron.  This was not the first time the Archbishop was accused of sexual molestation.   These are things that has happened so far: 

1. The first charge of sexual molestation came from John Toves in November, 2014.  John Toves was not molested, but he claimed that his cousin was sexually molested by Archbishop Apuron.  He spoke on behalf of his cousin whom he had never spoken to for several years.  And he heard of the sexual molestation of his cousin from other people. John Toves is known to be a good friend of Father Paul who even walked with him to the chancery and who was with him at the cathedral.  What does John Toves want?  He wants Father Paul and Monsignor James to be reinstated, and he wants the Archbishop to step down.  Although his relative never came forward, John called on other victims to step forward.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said that he did not sexually molest John's cousin.
2. Then on May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla came into the limelight of the media's cameras claiming that he was sexually abused by Archbishop Apuron.  His lawyer, who happened to be a relative of Monsignor James, was there representing him.  His reason for finally coming out after 40 years was because he learned that he was not the only victim, and has called out to other victims to step forward.  And what does Mr. Quintanilla want?  He wants the Archbishop to apologize to him and to step down.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest him.
3. Now today, a dead person from the grave comes out to claim that he was sexually molested by the Archbishop.  Of course, the dead person cannot speak for himself.  His mother spoke on behalf of him.  Doris Concepcion is also a very close friend to the family of Roy Quintanilla.  And what does she want?  She wants the Archbishop to admit the truth and do what is best for the people of Guam.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest her son. 

So far, only ONE person has come out claiming sexual abuse.  John's cousin did not come out and neither did Joseph Quinata.  Only Roy Quintanilla came out.  The reason he came out was because he now understands that he is not the only victim and even continues to call for other victims to step forward.  Forty years ago, Mr. Quintanilla thought that he was the only one.  Today, he says that he is not the only victim.  However, he is the only alleged victim who came out.